Call of Juarez: The Cartel Criticism Grows

[khoryos]

That's also the issue. If the game was being developed by, say, Bioware, a company that is known for making quality games about branching storylines with actual consequence, then we wouldn't be having this conversation as we would be pretty sure that at least those guys wouldn't want to fuck up their story by casting the situation in a stupid, exploitative light. I wouldn't really mind, really. Instead, what we as mexicans get is a stupid game about "badasses" (and oddly, a Hale Berry lookalike that seems to be mixed in there, too) cleaning town i.e. showing us brownies how to stand up to The Man the good ol' American way.

Have you played either of the first two CoJ games?
They're actually very well-written meditations on the self-destructive nature of greed, revenge, and violence.
If there was ever a series that would work responsibly with the cartel issue, it'd be CoJ.

 

[Natdaprat]

This game should be banned at all costs!!!

So they can bring it back to the Wild Fucking West!!!

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

They should be told that a lot based game usually have the player as the bad guy(Mafia and Mafia 2) or they should be shown Kane and Lynch 1 and 2 asked which kid wants to be like them.
Those games have very bad outcomes for the player character. I think only GTA(which I tried but didn't like) and Saint's Row(I can't control the cars in it on the PC version) series have good endings for the player character.
Even in Call of Juarez 2 the ending was bad for the main character.

 

[Jumplion]

Before the drug war started in 2006 I had no problem what-so-ever with games, and even now I'm not giving so much attention to them. I don't blame games because they are violent, or that they cause rape like the psychiatrist said.
But since the war started I've been feeling some (extreme) dislike for all these recent games (I actually prefer more the old games, but still it's been months since I last played a game), mainly because they are about "real-life" war scenarios based on ongoing conflicts, not fictionalized.
The main problem is that they do not actually show all the fear, all the wrong stuff, all the problems that the people have in that place right now. They only show the soldier's point of view; how about the children, the people who have lived through these wars, the people who have suffered for these wars, the people who are the REAL survivors?

A soldier and a drug dealer is very different to a worker, an honest person, a student, even though they are on the same place of conflict.

A soldier and a drug dealer mostly have to worry who they are going to kill, to protect themselves from being shot and if someone causes them trouble they can point a gun to them, and by the end of the day they'll have their payment. Everything else tends to go secondary.
The surviving people have to worry about not being robbed, not getting in the middle of a crossfire, of not getting fired, of having enough money to give to their family to eat, to not being kidnapped, to be robbed of what had to work for so long, that their family won't get hurt. And we cannot bloody protect ourselves.

And if they get do get hurt, well...

Everyday I have to walk in front of a funerary, and it's always full when I see it.

Curiously a lot more people have been going to the psychiatrist.


About the story, well I don't care to be honest, I been feeling that all these stories I have already experienced them one way or another. What makes them special is their presentation. But even then, the story won't be any good for me, because it will be about drug dealers, not about the survivors.

I understand your concern. Actually, I lied, I can never understand your concern because, well, I'm not in the same situation as you.

I suppose I felt a similar way after watching Schindler's List, now I can't look at any real war game or whatever without cringing, though it has subsided after a while. But we won't know any more until we see more of the game.

 

[Hudson_sir_he's_Hicks]

"Lots of kids say they want to be a hitman, because they are the ones that get away with everything," Laurencio Barraza

Surely that is the fault of corrupt officials, inept government and an ineffective legal system rather than Ubisoft

I wonder what social problem playing videogames will be attributed to next week? - poverty, exploitation of people in 3rd world countries, gender inequalities in the workplace? - take your pick.

 

[messy]

I know the usual argument, but the effect may be higher in Mexico if children already want to be like this. Its not like in the UK/USA where there are less aspirations to this sort of thing.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this, but that is incredibly racist. Just look at what you said. Mexican kids do not have any more "need" to be violent than anyone in the US or the UK. There are so many games like this that it is idiotic to say this one will have any more of an impact. Also, if the kid is in the position that he feels he needs to join a drug ring it?s not going to be a video game that helps him decide what to do.

Also, movies can cover these topics. Until video games can create subject matter about these types of situations it will never be respected.

It's not racist however it was poorly explained, I'm not suggesting that there is something intrinsic about mexican individuals that leads them to become criminals. However they are, as a fact, less well off economically (on the whole) then people in the USA and the UK and it is well established that an environment (notice environment, not the people in it) of poor economic wealth is more likely to lead to crime. Also in my original post I said "if" notice the if. I have not made any sweeping statements, however the article mentions the high murder rate in the city already perhaps its not the best idea to combine killing with a sense of achievement, especially in the city itself. A lot of games cover the concept sure but perhaps not ones specifically set in one area (even GTA changes it to liberty city so there is more a sense of a flase environment). And the sheriff of the area himself, who has first hand experience of the said area is suggesting it may have a negative impact and I feel he has a better grasp of the situation then either of us. Even if the villains all belong to the "cartel" suggesting killing as an option isn't the best one. And yes you are right to point out that many other games cover killing and stuff but very rarely are they sit in current events, now there is no problem of setting it in modern events but as long as its done tastefully and with a responsible message.

I can't help but think, and I may be wrong and if I am I'll genuinely be pleased, that this game isn't going to contain some massive anti-drugs message. The cartel will most likely just be a lazy excuse to set the game in the "modern" setting that everyone wants and provide and easily explained "they sell drugs, and the only way to solve this is with bullets."

In regards to your final point about video games need to start representing things like this to be taking seriously is a fair point. However we should not jump to the defence of any game that tries to do it. Six days in Fallujah seemed like a reasonable attempt to handle something controversial via the media of video games. They worked with actual soldiers, researched it properly and were just trying to share the experience. Now previous CoJ games haven't glorified violence so I'm now willing to discount it completely, just the sudden jump to the "modern" day makes me wary that this could all just be trying to jump on the CoD bandwagon.

 

[King_Serpent]

I know the usual argument, but the effect may be higher in Mexico if children already want to be like this. Its not like in the UK/USA where there are less aspirations to this sort of thing.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this, but that is incredibly racist. Just look at what you said. Mexican kids do not have any more "need" to be violent than anyone in the US or the UK. There are so many games like this that it is idiotic to say this one will have any more of an impact. Also, if the kid is in the position that he feels he needs to join a drug ring it?s not going to be a video game that helps him decide what to do.

Also, movies can cover these topics. Until video games can create subject matter about these types of situations it will never be respected.

It's not racist however it was poorly explained, I'm not suggesting that there is something intrinsic about mexican individuals that leads them to become criminals. However they are, as a fact, less well off economically (on the whole) then people in the USA and the UK and it is well established that an environment (notice environment, not the people in it) of poor economic wealth is more likely to lead to crime. Also in my original post I said "if" notice the if. I have not made any sweeping statements, however the article mentions the high murder rate in the city already perhaps its not the best idea to combine killing with a sense of achievement, especially in the city itself. A lot of games cover the concept sure but perhaps not ones specifically set in one area (even GTA changes it to liberty city so there is more a sense of a flase environment). And the sheriff of the area himself, who has first hand experience of the said area is suggesting it may have a negative impact and I feel he has a better grasp of the situation then either of us. Even if the villains all belong to the "cartel" suggesting killing as an option isn't the best one. And yes you are right to point out that many other games cover killing and stuff but very rarely are they sit in current events, now there is no problem of setting it in modern events but as long as its done tastefully and with a responsible message.

I can't help but think, and I may be wrong and if I am I'll genuinely be pleased, that this game isn't going to contain some massive anti-drugs message. The cartel will most likely just be a lazy excuse to set the game in the "modern" setting that everyone wants and provide and easily explained "they sell drugs, and the only way to solve this is with bullets."

In regards to your final point about video games need to start representing things like this to be taking seriously is a fair point. However we should not jump to the defence of any game that tries to do it. Six days in Fallujah seemed like a reasonable attempt to handle something controversial via the media of video games. They worked with actual soldiers, researched it properly and were just trying to share the experience. Now previous CoJ games haven't glorified violence so I'm now willing to discount it completely, just the sudden jump to the "modern" day makes me wary that this could all just be trying to jump on the CoD bandwagon.

You argument does not sway me because you judge games that are not even out yet with very little information or will never be released. The guys doing Six days in Fallujah actually had the first hand experiences of the soldiers who fought at Fallujah, like you said. They were in fact asked to make the game by soldiers who were at that terrible event. I do not view these guys as attention seeking, but actually trying to tell a real story in an interactive manner.

In addition, I am not saying that you are racist, but as you have said, it was a slightly racist statement. The environment changing the people is a fair argument, but I for one find that their will be more moving a member of society to join gangs than video games. This game will not become a driving force in these kids. Now for last and main point that just makes this whole thing unbearable for me. There is, and I repeat, there is no conclusive evidence that games cause violence. No studies have conclusively proved these points and they will not for years to come. To judge the games by what we ?think? the truth might be is poor science. I personally believe that video games will have almost no long-term effect on us as humans in how much violence we can handle in real life. For example, I use my own experience. I have seen peoples heads blown off, limps cut off with fountains of blood, (arms shot of with fountains of blood), zombies blown to pieces, enemies chain sawed, and all other types of blood driven terror, that if seen in real life that would make me puke. I can tell the difference as can almost anyone without a large disconnect from reality. Once I saw a friend simply cut his finger by accident. That small amount of blood affected me more than any movie or video game ever has or will. I have not been desynthesized to violence nor will most people.

Sorry I actually have one last point to add. I dislike it when others push morality on others. If something goes against your morals do not partake of it. If it is a work of art especially then leave it be. I will not allow people to deny peoples rights to create art in any setting they desire just to make it more PC. Saying, ?This is nameless desert 39,? does not change it from being Afghanistan it just pleases people who cannot handle real debate on a subject through such an inspired new medium. (I know calling video games a medium is a bit off, but there are not many words to describe video games quickly so ?medium? will do for now.) Game story lines must be allowed to take place in areas of conflict even if the story does give the wrong impression, because then that allows (and in fact motivates) others who will be able to do real justice to the material. This is giving them the opening they need to create that work of art which shows the reality of the situation. If we back down to these types of people then we dismantle our ability to take a stand on anything. If we say fine video games do not deserve the same rights as movies or other mediums, then this would be a blow, I believe, to not just the video game industry but to the betterment of the human condition. You might say that is ?hyperbolic,? but I think that is short minded. These stories can pave the way for others to create interactive works of art. Remember every industry has had to deal with people claiming that something goes to far. Still, the industries have broken free. Video games must do the same and blocking paths is counter productive.

P.S Personally, I do not like the past Call of Juarez just because they are not well made. Still, they have every right to try to make something new. I always give these games the benefit of the doubt until they are released and reviewed or I am needlessly biased.

 

[messy]

I know the usual argument, but the effect may be higher in Mexico if children already want to be like this. Its not like in the UK/USA where there are less aspirations to this sort of thing.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this, but that is incredibly racist. Just look at what you said. Mexican kids do not have any more "need" to be violent than anyone in the US or the UK. There are so many games like this that it is idiotic to say this one will have any more of an impact. Also, if the kid is in the position that he feels he needs to join a drug ring it?s not going to be a video game that helps him decide what to do.

Also, movies can cover these topics. Until video games can create subject matter about these types of situations it will never be respected.

It's not racist however it was poorly explained, I'm not suggesting that there is something intrinsic about mexican individuals that leads them to become criminals. However they are, as a fact, less well off economically (on the whole) then people in the USA and the UK and it is well established that an environment (notice environment, not the people in it) of poor economic wealth is more likely to lead to crime. Also in my original post I said "if" notice the if. I have not made any sweeping statements, however the article mentions the high murder rate in the city already perhaps its not the best idea to combine killing with a sense of achievement, especially in the city itself. A lot of games cover the concept sure but perhaps not ones specifically set in one area (even GTA changes it to liberty city so there is more a sense of a flase environment). And the sheriff of the area himself, who has first hand experience of the said area is suggesting it may have a negative impact and I feel he has a better grasp of the situation then either of us. Even if the villains all belong to the "cartel" suggesting killing as an option isn't the best one. And yes you are right to point out that many other games cover killing and stuff but very rarely are they sit in current events, now there is no problem of setting it in modern events but as long as its done tastefully and with a responsible message.

I can't help but think, and I may be wrong and if I am I'll genuinely be pleased, that this game isn't going to contain some massive anti-drugs message. The cartel will most likely just be a lazy excuse to set the game in the "modern" setting that everyone wants and provide and easily explained "they sell drugs, and the only way to solve this is with bullets."

In regards to your final point about video games need to start representing things like this to be taking seriously is a fair point. However we should not jump to the defence of any game that tries to do it. Six days in Fallujah seemed like a reasonable attempt to handle something controversial via the media of video games. They worked with actual soldiers, researched it properly and were just trying to share the experience. Now previous CoJ games haven't glorified violence so I'm now willing to discount it completely, just the sudden jump to the "modern" day makes me wary that this could all just be trying to jump on the CoD bandwagon.

You argument does not sway me because you judge games that are not even out yet with very little information or will never be released. The guys doing Six days in Fallujah actually had the first hand experiences of the soldiers who fought at Fallujah, like you said. They were in fact asked to make the game by soldiers who were at that terrible event. I do not view these guys as attention seeking, but actually trying to tell a real story in an interactive manner.

In addition, I am not saying that you are racist, but as you have said, it was a slightly racist statement. The environment changing the people is a fair argument, but I for one find that their will be more moving a member of society to join gangs than video games. This game will not become a driving force in these kids. Now for last and main point that just makes this whole thing unbearable for me. There is, and I repeat, there is no conclusive evidence that games cause violence. No studies have conclusively proved these points and they will not for years to come. To judge the games by what we ?think? the truth might be is poor science. I personally believe that video games will have almost no long-term effect on us as humans in how much violence we can handle in real life. For example, I use my own experience. I have seen peoples heads blown off, limps cut off with fountains of blood, (arms shot of with fountains of blood), zombies blown to pieces, enemies chain sawed, and all other types of blood driven terror, that if seen in real life that would make me puke. I can tell the difference as can almost anyone without a large disconnect from reality. Once I saw a friend simply cut his finger by accident. That small amount of blood affected me more than any movie or video game ever has or will. I have not been desynthesized to violence nor will most people.

Sorry I actually have one last point to add. I dislike it when others push morality on others. If something goes against your morals do not partake of it. If it is a work of art especially then leave it be. I will not allow people to deny peoples rights to create art in any setting they desire just to make it more PC. Saying, ?This is nameless desert 39,? does not change it from being Afghanistan it just pleases people who cannot handle real debate on a subject through such an inspired new medium. (I know calling video games a medium is a bit off, but there are not many words to describe video games quickly so ?medium? will do for now.) Game story lines must be allowed to take place in areas of conflict even if the story does give the wrong impression, because then that allows (and in fact motivates) others who will be able to do real justice to the material. This is giving them the opening they need to create that work of art which shows the reality of the situation. If we back down to these types of people then we dismantle our ability to take a stand on anything. If we say fine video games do not deserve the same rights as movies or other mediums, then this would be a blow, I believe, to not just the video game industry but to the betterment of the human condition. You might say that is ?hyperbolic,? but I think that is short minded. These stories can pave the way for others to create interactive works of art. Remember every industry has had to deal with people claiming that something goes to far. Still, the industries have broken free. Video games must do the same and blocking paths is counter productive.

P.S Personally, I do not like the past Call of Juarez just because they are not well made. Still, they have every right to try to make something new. I always give these games the benefit of the doubt until they are released and reviewed or I am needlessly biased.

My argument is not for censorship, it is not for games to be divided from art. This game is using a real world example, that is still happening and it is going to make it fun. The trailer (all be it brief) gave no hint at a strong anti-drugs message. Art should not be censored, but that doesn't mean artists can relinquish all responsibility. To those that have lost people to drugs cartles, who have buried bodies of love ones surely some consideration to them has to be taken. I do not feel that an expression of the human condition should come at the cost of actual human beings. I by that I mean, this could cause real distress for large numbers of people.

You've pointed out other mediums "go to far" which is of course valid and I'm glad they have. But most use made up examples so people can think about it all the same without the distress to individuals who have suffered. Now you mention that "desert area 55" doesn't make a difference but it would to people who are walking around a store. If the message the game is promoting is so strong, so valid, then surely it doesn't matter if the setting is "real"? Setting something in a real environment doesn't make it any better at doing the job, fantastic books and films are made with the abstract. The story can, and should be told, without running the risk of upsetting those who are directly involved.

EDIT: The summary of my point is this. Video games have the same rights as any other piece of art, however to portray the event whilst it is still happening and use named examples is pretty poor taste in my opinion.

 

[King_Serpent]

I know the usual argument, but the effect may be higher in Mexico if children already want to be like this. Its not like in the UK/USA where there are less aspirations to this sort of thing.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this, but that is incredibly racist. Just look at what you said. Mexican kids do not have any more "need" to be violent than anyone in the US or the UK. There are so many games like this that it is idiotic to say this one will have any more of an impact. Also, if the kid is in the position that he feels he needs to join a drug ring it?s not going to be a video game that helps him decide what to do.

Also, movies can cover these topics. Until video games can create subject matter about these types of situations it will never be respected.

It's not racist however it was poorly explained, I'm not suggesting that there is something intrinsic about mexican individuals that leads them to become criminals. However they are, as a fact, less well off economically (on the whole) then people in the USA and the UK and it is well established that an environment (notice environment, not the people in it) of poor economic wealth is more likely to lead to crime. Also in my original post I said "if" notice the if. I have not made any sweeping statements, however the article mentions the high murder rate in the city already perhaps its not the best idea to combine killing with a sense of achievement, especially in the city itself. A lot of games cover the concept sure but perhaps not ones specifically set in one area (even GTA changes it to liberty city so there is more a sense of a flase environment). And the sheriff of the area himself, who has first hand experience of the said area is suggesting it may have a negative impact and I feel he has a better grasp of the situation then either of us. Even if the villains all belong to the "cartel" suggesting killing as an option isn't the best one. And yes you are right to point out that many other games cover killing and stuff but very rarely are they sit in current events, now there is no problem of setting it in modern events but as long as its done tastefully and with a responsible message.

I can't help but think, and I may be wrong and if I am I'll genuinely be pleased, that this game isn't going to contain some massive anti-drugs message. The cartel will most likely just be a lazy excuse to set the game in the "modern" setting that everyone wants and provide and easily explained "they sell drugs, and the only way to solve this is with bullets."

In regards to your final point about video games need to start representing things like this to be taking seriously is a fair point. However we should not jump to the defence of any game that tries to do it. Six days in Fallujah seemed like a reasonable attempt to handle something controversial via the media of video games. They worked with actual soldiers, researched it properly and were just trying to share the experience. Now previous CoJ games haven't glorified violence so I'm now willing to discount it completely, just the sudden jump to the "modern" day makes me wary that this could all just be trying to jump on the CoD bandwagon.

You argument does not sway me because you judge games that are not even out yet with very little information or will never be released. The guys doing Six days in Fallujah actually had the first hand experiences of the soldiers who fought at Fallujah, like you said. They were in fact asked to make the game by soldiers who were at that terrible event. I do not view these guys as attention seeking, but actually trying to tell a real story in an interactive manner.

In addition, I am not saying that you are racist, but as you have said, it was a slightly racist statement. The environment changing the people is a fair argument, but I for one find that their will be more moving a member of society to join gangs than video games. This game will not become a driving force in these kids. Now for last and main point that just makes this whole thing unbearable for me. There is, and I repeat, there is no conclusive evidence that games cause violence. No studies have conclusively proved these points and they will not for years to come. To judge the games by what we ?think? the truth might be is poor science. I personally believe that video games will have almost no long-term effect on us as humans in how much violence we can handle in real life. For example, I use my own experience. I have seen peoples heads blown off, limps cut off with fountains of blood, (arms shot of with fountains of blood), zombies blown to pieces, enemies chain sawed, and all other types of blood driven terror, that if seen in real life that would make me puke. I can tell the difference as can almost anyone without a large disconnect from reality. Once I saw a friend simply cut his finger by accident. That small amount of blood affected me more than any movie or video game ever has or will. I have not been desynthesized to violence nor will most people.

Sorry I actually have one last point to add. I dislike it when others push morality on others. If something goes against your morals do not partake of it. If it is a work of art especially then leave it be. I will not allow people to deny peoples rights to create art in any setting they desire just to make it more PC. Saying, ?This is nameless desert 39,? does not change it from being Afghanistan it just pleases people who cannot handle real debate on a subject through such an inspired new medium. (I know calling video games a medium is a bit off, but there are not many words to describe video games quickly so ?medium? will do for now.) Game story lines must be allowed to take place in areas of conflict even if the story does give the wrong impression, because then that allows (and in fact motivates) others who will be able to do real justice to the material. This is giving them the opening they need to create that work of art which shows the reality of the situation. If we back down to these types of people then we dismantle our ability to take a stand on anything. If we say fine video games do not deserve the same rights as movies or other mediums, then this would be a blow, I believe, to not just the video game industry but to the betterment of the human condition. You might say that is ?hyperbolic,? but I think that is short minded. These stories can pave the way for others to create interactive works of art. Remember every industry has had to deal with people claiming that something goes to far. Still, the industries have broken free. Video games must do the same and blocking paths is counter productive.

P.S Personally, I do not like the past Call of Juarez just because they are not well made. Still, they have every right to try to make something new. I always give these games the benefit of the doubt until they are released and reviewed or I am needlessly biased.

My argument is not for censorship, it is not for games to be divided from art. This game is using a real world example, that is still happening and it is going to make it fun. The trailer (all be it brief) gave no hint at a strong anti-drugs message. Art should not be censored, but that doesn't mean artists can relinquish all responsibility. To those that have lost people to drugs cartles, who have buried bodies of love ones surely some consideration to them has to be taken. I do not feel that an expression of the human condition should come at the cost of actual human beings. I by that I mean, this could cause real distress for large numbers of people.

You've pointed out other mediums "go to far" which is of course valid and I'm glad they have. But most use made up examples so people can think about it all the same without the distress to individuals who have suffered. Now you mention that "desert area 55" doesn't make a difference but it would to people who are walking around a store. If the message the game is promoting is so strong, so valid, then surely it doesn't matter if the setting is "real"? Setting something in a real environment doesn't make it any better at doing the job, fantastic books and films are made with the abstract. The story can, and should be told, without running the risk of upsetting those who are directly involved.

EDIT: The summary of my point is this. Video games have the same rights as any other piece of art, however to portray the event whilst it is still happening and use named examples is pretty poor taste in my opinion.

Then you do not give it the same right as movies because they go into events that happen to be happening now. I am done with this back and forth. The fact remains your holding games to a different standard and it is going to deny games the rights they deserve whether you realize it or not. Also, it does matter if you rename something, such as the Taliban being named Opp force. It shows that video games are not willing to put forth the effort to protect their works.

 

[ABLb0y]

why am i reminded of the Controversy surrounding Mass Effect?

 

[MrShowerHead]

Wait, wait. wait.....

Call of Juarez: The Cartel is scheduled to come out this summer for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

.....what? I thought that it..... No...

*sigh*.....Anyway, I know almost everyone here has said it, but...

IT'S RATED M FOR A REASON!!!

 

[messy]

I know the usual argument, but the effect may be higher in Mexico if children already want to be like this. Its not like in the UK/USA where there are less aspirations to this sort of thing.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this, but that is incredibly racist. Just look at what you said. Mexican kids do not have any more "need" to be violent than anyone in the US or the UK. There are so many games like this that it is idiotic to say this one will have any more of an impact. Also, if the kid is in the position that he feels he needs to join a drug ring it?s not going to be a video game that helps him decide what to do.

Also, movies can cover these topics. Until video games can create subject matter about these types of situations it will never be respected.

It's not racist however it was poorly explained, I'm not suggesting that there is something intrinsic about mexican individuals that leads them to become criminals. However they are, as a fact, less well off economically (on the whole) then people in the USA and the UK and it is well established that an environment (notice environment, not the people in it) of poor economic wealth is more likely to lead to crime. Also in my original post I said "if" notice the if. I have not made any sweeping statements, however the article mentions the high murder rate in the city already perhaps its not the best idea to combine killing with a sense of achievement, especially in the city itself. A lot of games cover the concept sure but perhaps not ones specifically set in one area (even GTA changes it to liberty city so there is more a sense of a flase environment). And the sheriff of the area himself, who has first hand experience of the said area is suggesting it may have a negative impact and I feel he has a better grasp of the situation then either of us. Even if the villains all belong to the "cartel" suggesting killing as an option isn't the best one. And yes you are right to point out that many other games cover killing and stuff but very rarely are they sit in current events, now there is no problem of setting it in modern events but as long as its done tastefully and with a responsible message.

I can't help but think, and I may be wrong and if I am I'll genuinely be pleased, that this game isn't going to contain some massive anti-drugs message. The cartel will most likely just be a lazy excuse to set the game in the "modern" setting that everyone wants and provide and easily explained "they sell drugs, and the only way to solve this is with bullets."

In regards to your final point about video games need to start representing things like this to be taking seriously is a fair point. However we should not jump to the defence of any game that tries to do it. Six days in Fallujah seemed like a reasonable attempt to handle something controversial via the media of video games. They worked with actual soldiers, researched it properly and were just trying to share the experience. Now previous CoJ games haven't glorified violence so I'm now willing to discount it completely, just the sudden jump to the "modern" day makes me wary that this could all just be trying to jump on the CoD bandwagon.

You argument does not sway me because you judge games that are not even out yet with very little information or will never be released. The guys doing Six days in Fallujah actually had the first hand experiences of the soldiers who fought at Fallujah, like you said. They were in fact asked to make the game by soldiers who were at that terrible event. I do not view these guys as attention seeking, but actually trying to tell a real story in an interactive manner.

In addition, I am not saying that you are racist, but as you have said, it was a slightly racist statement. The environment changing the people is a fair argument, but I for one find that their will be more moving a member of society to join gangs than video games. This game will not become a driving force in these kids. Now for last and main point that just makes this whole thing unbearable for me. There is, and I repeat, there is no conclusive evidence that games cause violence. No studies have conclusively proved these points and they will not for years to come. To judge the games by what we ?think? the truth might be is poor science. I personally believe that video games will have almost no long-term effect on us as humans in how much violence we can handle in real life. For example, I use my own experience. I have seen peoples heads blown off, limps cut off with fountains of blood, (arms shot of with fountains of blood), zombies blown to pieces, enemies chain sawed, and all other types of blood driven terror, that if seen in real life that would make me puke. I can tell the difference as can almost anyone without a large disconnect from reality. Once I saw a friend simply cut his finger by accident. That small amount of blood affected me more than any movie or video game ever has or will. I have not been desynthesized to violence nor will most people.

Sorry I actually have one last point to add. I dislike it when others push morality on others. If something goes against your morals do not partake of it. If it is a work of art especially then leave it be. I will not allow people to deny peoples rights to create art in any setting they desire just to make it more PC. Saying, ?This is nameless desert 39,? does not change it from being Afghanistan it just pleases people who cannot handle real debate on a subject through such an inspired new medium. (I know calling video games a medium is a bit off, but there are not many words to describe video games quickly so ?medium? will do for now.) Game story lines must be allowed to take place in areas of conflict even if the story does give the wrong impression, because then that allows (and in fact motivates) others who will be able to do real justice to the material. This is giving them the opening they need to create that work of art which shows the reality of the situation. If we back down to these types of people then we dismantle our ability to take a stand on anything. If we say fine video games do not deserve the same rights as movies or other mediums, then this would be a blow, I believe, to not just the video game industry but to the betterment of the human condition. You might say that is ?hyperbolic,? but I think that is short minded. These stories can pave the way for others to create interactive works of art. Remember every industry has had to deal with people claiming that something goes to far. Still, the industries have broken free. Video games must do the same and blocking paths is counter productive.

P.S Personally, I do not like the past Call of Juarez just because they are not well made. Still, they have every right to try to make something new. I always give these games the benefit of the doubt until they are released and reviewed or I am needlessly biased.

My argument is not for censorship, it is not for games to be divided from art. This game is using a real world example, that is still happening and it is going to make it fun. The trailer (all be it brief) gave no hint at a strong anti-drugs message. Art should not be censored, but that doesn't mean artists can relinquish all responsibility. To those that have lost people to drugs cartles, who have buried bodies of love ones surely some consideration to them has to be taken. I do not feel that an expression of the human condition should come at the cost of actual human beings. I by that I mean, this could cause real distress for large numbers of people.

You've pointed out other mediums "go to far" which is of course valid and I'm glad they have. But most use made up examples so people can think about it all the same without the distress to individuals who have suffered. Now you mention that "desert area 55" doesn't make a difference but it would to people who are walking around a store. If the message the game is promoting is so strong, so valid, then surely it doesn't matter if the setting is "real"? Setting something in a real environment doesn't make it any better at doing the job, fantastic books and films are made with the abstract. The story can, and should be told, without running the risk of upsetting those who are directly involved.

EDIT: The summary of my point is this. Video games have the same rights as any other piece of art, however to portray the event whilst it is still happening and use named examples is pretty poor taste in my opinion.

Then you do not give it the same right as movies because they go into events that happen to be happening now. I am done with this back and forth. The fact remains your holding games to a different standard and it is going to deny games the rights they deserve whether you realize it or not. Also, it does matter if you rename something, such as the Taliban being named Opp force. It shows that video games are not willing to put forth the effort to protect their works.

I am not saying all games. I am saying this particular game. It is possible to criticize one game without it being the stab at the entire genre. I have made no generalisations to video games as a whole. Just this game. And the Taliban are a different example, no one from the taliban will be playing that game. I am talking about individuals whose lives were ruined by drug cartels could see this game and it will upset them.

Just because movies do it doesn't make it right here. And you can't just call something an "art" and relinquish all responsibility for any negative impact it may have.

I am not willing to put the "rights" of a medium above the suffering of actual human beings. And no this will not cause some cultural vacuum or anything as drastic. It is only this game I am talking about. Although since you are "done" with the back and forth feel free not reply.

 

[King_Serpent]

Quote to damn long.

I want to end this and just say "the Taliban don't affect anyone who plays video games" statement is bullshit. Soldiers come back and play the game, and guess what they have the same chance of being effected as anyone else in Mexico playing a drug cartel game. I am saying that you cannot start saying that an individual should have less rights to saying what they want, tahn another. For example, just because a man says something racist, you cannot throw him in jail. If he threatens a person because of race then you can arrest him. In the same way, if this game portrays ideas you do not like you cannot throw it out the window. If you can say this game causes crime then all games ?can? cause crime. It just leaves the point that any game involving crime or any other type of violence should not exist. You might not mean to say all games should be blocked, but the fact is if one is stopped for these reasons they all deserve to be blocked. I also still refuse to believe that Games are going to cause a child to join drug rings. That choice will not be made by video games trust me. One example of this is that there was one mode that would take place in a WWII concentration camp. From my understanding, it might not have had a whole lot to say about the situation that the people there had to endure, but little information was released before multiple groups attacked the game as being anti-Semitist. The leaders of those groups said that no games should ever be allowed to have games portray the situations in concentration camps. To close the door on one game allows the same to be done for all other games. It reveals to everyone that we will not protect our creative integrity. Now, do I think this Cartel game will be good? No, not really. Do I think it has the right to exist? Yes, I certainly do. Unless it does things that is not protected by free speech (as of right now) then it should be permitted.

Now, I do not think badly of you, I really do not, but I really do not want to waste any more time on this argument. We will go back and forth and I, being who I am, will be forced to write entire paragraphs about why you are wrong. You seem to be the same. I really do not want to do this anymore because it is a waste of both our time.
Thank you for your time.
PS but I will most likely will respond to you if you continue this pointless debate, but the responses will probably get shorter as time goes on.

 

[Ulixes Dimon]

So...the game isn't finished yet, no one has played the game, and people can only guess what it's about, but these people are absolutely SURE that it glorifies drug cartels just based on the title.

How the hell do they know that the main idea behind the game won't be DISMANTLING drug cartels?

These people are stupid.

Thaaaaaaaaank Youuuuuuuuuu

 

[Katana314]

What the hell?...
I can ALMOST see what these critics are referring to, but...there are about a million and one games with similar premises. Why this game in particular?

Plus, from what I could see of the trailer, you play as cops. Bad cops, but still people looking to end the cartels.